09-25-2014 08:21 PM
71 123
tools
  1. GadgetGator's Avatar
    The Courts decide what is constitutional not me. Or else the Patriot Act would have been gone by now right?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    I don't know why you are being evasive on this question. I asked you WHY you think it would be found constitutional. Not who decides such matters. I think everyone here knows you are not on the Supreme Court bench.

    Posted via Android Central App
    09-15-2014 11:43 AM
  2. A895's Avatar
    I don't know why you are being evasive on this question. I asked you WHY you think it would be found constitutional. Not who decides such matters. I think everyone here knows you are not on the Supreme Court bench.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I don't know why my opinion matters. I think it is constitutional, but that doesn't matter.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-15-2014 06:12 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    You can still believe what you want but the military was always created and raised with Christian beliefs just like the Unites States government was.
    I believe the US Army is the oldest military branch. Chapter 6 of US Army Regulation 601-210 states:

    "6–18. Administration of oath of enlistment
    A commissioned officer of any Service will administer the Oath of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each applicant. Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. Display the U.S. flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words 'So help me God' may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath."

    The last sentence is very significant. It is interesting that the US Army is allowed to omit part of the oath, but the US Air Force is not.
    UJ95x and A895 like this.
    09-15-2014 09:22 PM
  4. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I don't know why my opinion matters. I think it is constitutional, but that doesn't matter.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Dodging the question again? Really? You make all these claims but then are unable to explain just how such a thing could be considered constitutional. I'd really like to know but sadly I don't think you even know yourself, hence the inability to explain.

    Oh well. I'll consider it unconstitutional until you or someone else explains how it is. But I don't think that explanation will be coming.

    Posted via Android Central App
    09-15-2014 10:36 PM
  5. dctokyo's Avatar
    Atheist airman must swear 'so help me God' or get out in November -- Air Force Times (article link here)

    The US Air Force is making an atheist swear an oath with the phrase "so help me God" in order to reenlist. If he fails to do so, he must leave in November.

    The name of the airman has not been released to the public. The oath he was supposed to take is:

    "I, [insert name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Previously, the Air Force allowed airmen to omit "so help me God," but reversed its position on October 30, 2013. The Air Force now claims it cannot change the oath unless Congress changes the law.

    Should the military force people to swear to God, in violation of their beliefs?
    Army Regulation 601-210, Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program provides that:
    The words “So help me God” may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath.

    Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”
    That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    09-15-2014 10:57 PM
  6. EdwinBos's Avatar
    What if he would believe in Brahman or Allah, would that be ok? If he doesn't believe in God, what does it mean to swear to a God he doesn't believe in?

    Think it is strange to put this back in...
    09-16-2014 03:54 AM
  7. A895's Avatar
    Dodging the question again? Really? You make all these claims but then are unable to explain just how such a thing could be considered constitutional. I'd really like to know but sadly I don't think you even know yourself, hence the inability to explain.

    Oh well. I'll consider it unconstitutional until you or someone else explains how it is. But I don't think that explanation will be coming.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I already said my reasons why I think it is constitutional earlier in the thread. I am not dodging anything, I answered your questions, you just don't like my answers.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-16-2014 11:56 AM
  8. BobLobIaw's Avatar
    Dodging the question again? Really? You make all these claims but then are unable to explain just how such a thing could be considered constitutional. I'd really like to know but sadly I don't think you even know yourself, hence the inability to explain.

    Oh well. I'll consider it unconstitutional until you or someone else explains how it is. But I don't think that explanation will be coming.

    Posted via Android Central App
    The argument, as I read it, was that the airman still had "choice" so there could not be a violation of his rights. He had the choice to recite an oath that he did not believe or he had the choice to not re-enlist. Of course, that argument is like saying Rosa Parks had a choice: she could have moved to the back of the bus or she could have exited the bus. The argument fails because it's not about what residual choice remains, it concerns the unfair abridgement of rights sourced in equal protection of the laws. This is a clear violation of the Constitution but it will never get to the Supreme Court because the Air Force will back down long before then or Congress will change the law requiring that language.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    09-16-2014 02:00 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.
    Perhaps the US Air Force is merely complying with the law that Congress passed, but the US Army is in violation of it. Looking at the statute itself, there is no exemption to omit any portion of the oath of enlistment.

    The relevant statute is as follows:

    10 US Code 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer

    (a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
    “I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    (b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
    A895 likes this.
    09-16-2014 08:05 PM
  10. BobLobIaw's Avatar
    Perhaps the US Air Force is merely complying with the law that Congress passed, but the US Army is in violation of it. Looking at the statute itself, there is no exemption to omit any portion of the oath of enlistment.

    The relevant statute is as follows:

    10 US Code 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer

    (a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
    “I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    (b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
    The Army JAG attorneys are probably smart enough to tell them not to enforce the last four words, as it is clearly unconstitutional and just invites litigation. It looks like it worked, as well, because now the controversy is the problem of the Air Force.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    09-16-2014 11:45 PM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    The Army JAG attorneys are probably smart enough to tell them not to enforce the last four words, as it is clearly unconstitutional and just invites litigation.
    Is there an alternative to the phrase, "So help me God," or is the solution just to make it optional?
    BobLobIaw likes this.
    09-17-2014 06:15 PM
  12. BobLobIaw's Avatar
    Is there an alternative to the phrase, "So help me God," or is the solution just to make it optional?
    It's really unnecessary and should just be deleted or made optional as you mentioned if a compromise needs to be made. Here is the attorney's oath for the State of Nevada, for example:

    "I, ____________, do solemnly affirm that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of attorney, on which I am about to enter; under the pains and penalties of perjury."

    As I see it, an affirmation made under the pains and penalties of perjury doesn't need God's blessing to be valid.
    palandri and Scott7217 like this.
    09-17-2014 06:38 PM
  13. UJ95x's Avatar
    http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/sep...rce-says-word-

    It has been reversed 🙌
    BobLobIaw and nolittdroid like this.
    09-17-2014 07:49 PM
  14. BobLobIaw's Avatar
    Yeah, just saw that. Good move DOD General Counsel!
    09-17-2014 08:52 PM
  15. BobLobIaw's Avatar
    Optional omission--a good solution.
    09-17-2014 08:52 PM
  16. UJ95x's Avatar
    Optional omission--a good solution.
    The only solution
    09-17-2014 09:37 PM
  17. Javier P's Avatar
    Making it optional is fine, but some people are going to demand that they should use the name of their personal God/Gods instead of the Christian generic.

    So, after a lot of thought my conclusion is that the army needs to have a POO (Personal Oaths Office) where every optional phrasing should be submitted for approval. I know, I know. This won't be enough and more departments should be created. After deep considerations I'm inclined to BURP (Bureau for Unauthorised Religious Paraphernalia) where should be decided which cloths, ornaments or jewellery can be used during the ceremony. So, anyone re-enlisting should agree with a BURP and a POO stamp.

    And of course, we'll need, at a Federal level, some I. D. I. O. T (Inter Departmental Institute Of Tolerance) to control the whole process.

    Just a bit of fun mates, no offence intended. OK?
    09-18-2014 07:07 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    It has been reversed 🙌
    However, this only applies to the oaths of enlistment for the Air Force and the Army, right? The other branches of the military are unaffected?

    Also, could the atheist airman face reprisals from those in command? I don't think superior officers like to have their authority challenged.
    A895 likes this.
    09-24-2014 04:01 AM
  19. A895's Avatar
    However, this only applies to the oaths of enlistment for the Air Force and the Army, right? The other branches of the military are unaffected?

    Also, could the atheist airman face reprisals from those in command? I don't think superior officers like to have their authority challenged.
    I definitely could see some other officers giving him a hard time. From what I know of the military, they will do that. Mom, Aunt and Uncle were all in the military. I was even born on a army base.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-24-2014 08:29 AM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    You know who else demands that you follow their ideological beliefs? ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban..... I don't like the idea of our soldiers fighting under the flag of Christianity. Given our role in much of the fighting overseas, I would prefer our enemies not try to turn this into another holy war. Too much blood has been spilled on account of religion already.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    09-24-2014 10:53 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    I definitely could see some other officers giving him a hard time. From what I know of the military, they will do that.
    As it stands, the US military has a divided policy on the issue. In some branches, you can omit part of the oath. In other branches, you cannot. There is no consistency, and technically speaking, the Air Force and the Army are violating the law.

    Given that the military depends on conformity, I can see a situation where personnel may face abuse from their superiors, even if there are guidelines that allow modifications to the oath of enlistment.
    A895 likes this.
    09-25-2014 08:21 PM
71 123

Similar Threads

  1. FM Radio (real over the air fine-tunning FM radio)
    By Mihai Ceuca in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-29-2017, 02:22 PM
  2. Force gpu rendering
    By marios1441 in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-11-2014, 06:18 AM
  3. Hello from Buenos Aires!
    By fcmatteo in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 10:23 AM
  4. GSM version of the ZTE Force N9100?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2014, 02:26 PM
  5. Air printing with Android (Samsung Note 3)
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2014, 10:52 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD